Traitors

TOP OF THE FOLD
Call them what they are—TRAITORS...
On the heels of the "White House-CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but which resulted in straw-grasping charges against Lewis Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff), liberals are attempting to parlay that non-starter into a much bigger political brawl.
Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder—and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.
Democrats are using the Iraq War for trivial political fodder.
Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of—and we don't use this term lightly—treasonous.
Here are their accusations:
Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)
Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)
Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)


The MSM is reporting Demo charges as de facto truth.
Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.
Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.
The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.
Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:
President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
"[Saddam] will develop, deploy and use WMD." —Bill Clinton
Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right—it was a "baby formula" factory.
Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat... to the security of the world."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
"[Saddam] is too dangerous to be given carte blanche with WMD." —Harry Reid
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
"[Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening." —Dick Durban
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After the 2000 election:
When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years—years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
"Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." —Ted Kennedy
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
"Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that." —Nancy Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.
So, Ted, Dick and Harry ... what's your real agenda?
Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom—only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.
President Bush's only motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom was in fulfillment of the highest obligation of his office: defending our liberty against all threats.
Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy—and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.
For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.
In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?
Call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid and Company for what they are: TRAITORS
Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.
(Editor's Note: This essay is based on a Patriot Alert that was circulated 11 November. If you are interested in exact quote sources, start by entering the words "Clinton Iraq 1998" into your Internet search engine.)








Never has an article made me blink with astonishment as much as when I read in yesterday's New York Times magazine that Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, former ambassador-at-large for the Taliban, is now studying at Yale on a U.S. student visa. This is taking the obsession that U.S. universities have with promoting diversity a bit too far." —John Fund






February 24, 2006
Of the People, By the People, For the Terrorists
Frank Salvato
Common sense dictates that it is unwise to fund those who want to do you harm. It makes no sense to buy bullets for a gun that will be shot at you. In fact, it wouldn’t be out of line to say that funding those who have declared you are the enemy, for any reason, is a pretty stupid move. In light of this bit of logic, why is the United States, or any other free nation for that matter, still mulling the possibility of funding a Hamas-led Palestinian government?Recently, the US State Department, in response to declarations by senior Hamas leaders refusing to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, and the refusal of those now elected to power by the Palestinian people to renounce violence and terrorism, asked – asked – the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million US dollars so taxpayers were not funding a Hamas lead Palestinian government.The fact that Hamas refuses to both acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and renounce its terrorism isn’t surprising. After all, Hamas is a terrorist organization and recognized as such, not only by our State Department, but by just about every credible entity on the face of the planet. Those who don’t recognize Hamas as a purveyor of terror are those who are themselves involved in terrorism, those who are corrupt beyond salvage, “progressive” college students vulnerable to their Socialist-leaning professors and Jimmy Carter.There is an important point that needs to be highlighted. “Aid” that is issued in the name of the US government to any country or organization for any reason is literally derived of taxpayer dollars. Whether it is $350 million for tsunami relief, an initial $50 million for Pakistani earthquake aid or $87 billion for the liberation, stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq, it is all derived from taxpayer dollars.So, when the US government sends $50 million to coax Hamas terrorists into not murdering their Israeli neighbors; to reward them for restraining from strapping on suicide vests made of nails and C4 in a quest to acquaint themselves with those 72 virgins, the bribe is bankrolled by American taxpayer dollars.Keeping that in mind, the State Department, although it has asked for the $50 million still in Palestinian Authority hands to be returned, says it will “continue to work to meet the humanitarian needs of ordinary Palestinians using non-governmental entities.”Translation: The US government is going to find ways to continue to give American taxpayer dollars to the people who are directly responsible for voting a terrorist organization into power, and are knowingly complicit with the actions of a terrorist organization sanctioned through their democratic process.The United States has given over $1.5 billion in aid to the Palestinians over the past decade, channeling most of the aid through non-governmental entities. Over the same period of time the vitriol aimed at the United States coming from the leaders of Hamas, and those groups aligned with Hamas – not to mention the Palestinian people, has grown exponentially. The experiment of trying to “buy the child’s love” has failed miserably and, as in real life, the child has grown to resent the adult, this time to the point of wanting to kill him.Lending material support, or knowingly providing financial support, physical assets or services to a foreign terrorist organization was criminalized (US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113B, Sections 2339A & 2339B) during the Clinton administration as part of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. In 2001, the Patriot Act increased the penalty for providing material support from 10 years in prison to 15 years and determined that "if the death of any person results, [violators] shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life."The US State Department officially recognizes Hamas as a terrorist organization. Therefore it is illegal for aid, in any form – whether from a governmental, a non-governmental or a private entity – to be given to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority or those who voted them into power for any reason.If, as the State Department says, the US government continues to “work to meet the humanitarian needs of ordinary Palestinians using non-governmental entities,” it is in violation of the law. Essentially, the US government would be "laundering" taxpayer dollars through non-governmental groups to give aid to a terrorist organization.Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is calling on Islamic nations to fund the Palestinian government after Hamas takes control, while Iran’s president calls for the annihilation of Israel from the face of the earth. Both of the genocidal maniacs call for Israeli destruction – as well as the downfall of the United States – while Iran defies the World by ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pursuing nuclear weapons.The lines are being drawn, people, and the United States is not the one doing the drawing!Humanitarian aid is one thing, but when US taxpayer dollars are being given to the very people calling for our country's downfall “We the People” must stand up, say enough is enough and make sure we are heard.It is time that those elected to represent us in Washington DC understand fully that they are elected to represent us, the voters, the taxpayers, not to extract hard-earned dollars for the benefit of terrorist organizations that would dance in the streets at our ruin.Abraham Lincoln observed that our government is "of the people, by the people and for the people," it is time those elected to govern realize they work for us and not the other way around.The United States must cease funding nations, organization and groups that, behind our backs, wish we were all dead. That’s not isolationism, it’s common sense. If it doesn’t we could very well see our “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” perish from the earth.
###
Frank Salvato is a political media consultant, a freelance writer from the Midwest and the Managing Editor for www.TheRant.us . He is a contributing writer to OpinionEditorials.com and AmericanDaily.com. He has appeared as a guest panelist on The O’Reilly Factor and his pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com and occasionally featured in The Washington Times as well as other national publications.
oped@therant.us






"In the United States there is no phenomenon more threatening to popular government than the unwillingness of newspapers to give the facts to their readers." —Nelson Antrim Crawford




February 27, 2006
Arlen Specter's Tangled Web of Pork
Chuck Muth
Hey, boys and girls. It’s that time of year again when Uncle Sam dons the red-suit-and-beard and hangs pork ornaments on the “Emergency Spending” tree. If you’re not quite familiar with this annual congressional festival, let me share with you just one example from last year’s taxpayer-funded earmark orgy.It all started when the president requested “emergency funding” to fight the War on Terror. Now, you may be thinking to yourself that this war has been going on for five years now and, therefore, the cost of fighting it should already be known and funded in the regular defense budget. You silly goose.In Washington, if you don’t declare an “emergency” of some sort each year, you don’t have an additional opportunity to lard up an additional spending bill with earmarks and pork. Geez. You really don’t know how things work in Washington, do you? Here, let me help you understand this better.Last year, the president asked Congress for billions in “emergency” funding for the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, used this “emergency” spending request as an opportunity to insert a provision into the “emergency” bill which directed that a $40 million grant to the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority “be used solely for the purpose of construction, by and for a Philadelphia-based company.”Stick with me here; the story is about to take some wild turns.Here’s how Sen. Specter explained the earmark to his colleagues on the Senate floor last April: “This money is being allocated to develop the port facilities in Philadelphia to accommodate a very new kind of ship which will compete with air travel and which has very substantial military as well as commercial purposes.”Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Well, maybe. Until pork-buster Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, took to the floor and blew the whistle.McCain informed the Senate that he had been in a meeting with the Secretary of the Navy, along with Sen. Specter, to discuss this matter. He noted that he was very proud of the Navy chief “because unequivocally the Secretary of the Navy said: No, we do not want this money, we do not have the technology, we do not have the design for this, this is not one of our requirements, and we do not want to spend $40 million in this fashion.” McCain added, “It was as strong a statement as I have ever heard from the Secretary of the Navy. This is basically a $40 million giveaway of the taxpayers’ dollars to a private corporation that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with it.”Yowza. But like Al Pacino in “Scent of a Woman,” McCain was just getting warmed up.“There is no design today for a high-speed military sealift,” McCain noted. “I wish there were. It is affordable. But the fact is that there is not. The fact is the Navy unequivocally said they do not want taxpayers’ dollars, defense dollars, spent on this port in the city of Philadelphia.” McCain again reiterated that “This has nothing to do with Afghanistan, it has nothing to do with the tsunami, it has nothing to do with Iraq, and it has nothing to do with the Navy’s requirements for a high-speed military sealift capability.”Sen. Specter then rose to the floor to defend his pet earmark. But McCain remained unconvinced, and brought up yet another aspect of the project: That the $40 million contract was being restricted to a Philadelphia-based entity, a requirement McCain found “astonishing.”“In other words,” the Arizona senator pointed out, “a company in Seattle or a company in Charleston or a company in Oklahoma, they couldn’t compete for this (contract). It has to be a Philadelphia-based company. What is it about Philadelphia-based companies that warrants them receiving a $40 million contract without competition from anybody else?” McCain added, “We should not be designating certain cities as a base for any company to compete for any contract of any kind. . . . In these times of burgeoning fiscal deficits, for us to designate money to be spent by a local-based company is just the wrong way to designate, and I think most Americans would agree.”Yep. Most Americans would. But not most of Sen. McCain’s colleagues.Fellow pork-buster, Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, offered an amendment to this “emergency” spending bill which would have stripped out this $40 million Philly-only earmark. The amendment was resoundingly rejected on a voice vote.But that’s still not the end of this sordid story.Not only was this $40 million earmark restricted to a Philadelphia-based company, but it turns out that there was only one Philadelphia company which would have qualified for the contract to build a port for a ship that doesn’t exist and which the Navy had no interest in. That Philadelphia company is FastShip Inc. And Business Week reports that FastShip executives “doled out $8,500 to help reelect Republican Senator Arlen Specter” in 2004.But it gets better...or worse, depending on how you look at it. According to The Center for Public Integrity, Sen. Specter also “received $24,500 from lobbyists working for Blank Rome LLP. So what’s that have to do with anything? Well, “One of Blank Rome’s largest clients is FastShip Inc.”Ah, that tangled web of pork. But what a sweet deal, huh? Thirty-three grand in campaign contributions in return for 40 million? I’d take that deal any day of the week and twice on Sunday. And Washington politicians wonder why taxpayers are (a) so damned cynical, and (b) so damned mad?
###
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.
chuckmuth@earthlink.net






"Surely even the Saudis see the true picture—that Al Gore is a bitter politician who, sadly, seems to be one slice short of a loaf these days." —Kathleen Parker






"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed. I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms." —Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia